Sibley v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation

Background

Christopher George Sibley and Maria Sibley filed the case on November 2, 2020. The complaint alleged that Christopher Sibley suffered asbestos-related lung injuries from repeated exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured, distributed, sold, supplied, installed, or maintained by defendants at his worksites. Christopher Sibley asserted claims for negligence, products liability, and premises-owner or contractor liability. Maria Sibley asserted a claim for the loss of her spousal relationship resulting from Christopher Sibley’s illness and later death.

Viking Pump, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on March 4, 2021. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition, and Viking Pump filed a notice of non-response. On March 26, 2021, the court granted Viking Pump’s motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against Viking Pump without prejudice.

Rule 60(b) Motion

Plaintiffs moved under Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for relief from the March 26 order based on excusable neglect. The court considered prejudice to Viking Pump, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether plaintiffs acted in good faith.

The court found that the relevant factors favored relief. It determined that setting aside the March 26 order would not prejudice Viking Pump, that the delay was minimal, and that plaintiffs had acted in good faith. Plaintiffs’ counsel attributed the missed deadline to the serious health condition of the paralegal assigned to the case and the difficulty of obtaining supplemental assistance during stay-at-home and work-from-home orders. The court found that plaintiffs had made a sufficient showing of excusable neglect and vacated the March 26 order.

Rule 6(b) Motion

Plaintiffs also moved under Rule 6(b) for an extension of the deadline to oppose Viking Pump’s dismissal motion. Rule 6(b) permits an extension after a deadline has expired when there is good cause and the failure to act resulted from excusable neglect.

The court found that plaintiffs had moved diligently, had shown good cause for a limited extension, and had sufficiently shown excusable neglect. It therefore allowed the late-filed opposition to be considered and set a new briefing schedule.

Disposition

The court granted plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motion and granted plaintiffs’ Rule 6(b) motion. It vacated the March 26 order, extended the deadline for opposing Viking Pump’s motion to dismiss to April 30, 2021—the date plaintiffs filed their opposition—and required Viking Pump to file its reply by May 21, 2021. The court vacated the hearing previously scheduled for May 7, 2021, and scheduled the dismissal-motion hearing for June 4, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. The opinion did not decide Viking Pump’s motion to dismiss on its merits.